Sacraficing your sound for mono?
 

How much are you willing to compromise your stereo sound for mono compatibility, and why?

i usually only record keys and drum tracks(not live) in stereo, otherwise, everything else is recorded in mono.

play music!

I'm willing to totally compromise it. If you collapse one of my recordings to mono I want it to completely null out - no sound at all. None. That'll teach 'em.

Ditto. The only addition here is acoustic guitars. I almost ALWAYS use two mics. And usually, they are recording in stereo.

That's not what the OP meant. Today's 'kids' are listening to music on their smartphones with one ear bud or the crappy little speaker - in mono.
I've been checking my mixes in mono, very easy to do in Reaper, as there is a 'mono' button the master buss.
This is a good way to ensure there is no phase cancellation issue (haha to sdelsolray).

oh, i guess i'm out of the loop. never mind! ha!

play music!

Call me old fashioned but I don't sacrifice. It is a given to me that I always work with techniques that foster compatibly and check compatibility. I learned that in 1972 when I put on Paul Simon's "Mother and Child Reunion," and accidentally pushed in the headphone jack halfway, shorting the two channels to mono. The lead guitar, lead guitar only, went completely away but its reverb remained. When I shoved in the jack completely the lead guitar sound was really wide with no center image. When I studied recording in college in 1979 I found the reason: The guitar was run into two channels and the phase was reversed on one, causing the wide image. The reverb was true stereo, the output from a stereo plate reverb, and was non-coherent, meaning that it shared little information between the channels, so it didn't phase cancel.

I've always just considered it necessary to be phase coherent so it isn't a compromise. ;)

Bob

100% phase coherent is pure mono.

I'm willing to sacrifice quite a bit but I still like there to be something there in mono, just in case.

Just in case of what?, I'm asking myself. A cell phone?!!!

If somebody's listening on a phone, at that level of fidelity, why should I care?
I really can't think of why I should.

Other than that what's mono anymore?

Jim McCarthy

If it sounds great in MONO - you have a great mix. Period.

cell phones, "blended" FM reception when the signal strength is not enough to hold a stereo signal, clock radios, overhead systems in restaurants, elevators and other commercial venues, (most) AM radio, many internet radio stations,

mono.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Pardon, I meant compatible.

Bob

I'm not sure I really get the question? Especially since any good mix on my home stereo or studio system sounds fine (albeit less dynamic) on my I phone even with just the built in speaker. Guess I'll have to listen closer.

And maybe I have not been paying attention but everybody I see listening on ear buds has a pair?

And when a playback system is actually putting out mono isn't it just putting putting both the L and R into one combo output?

The only thing I have noticed about trying to get a mix to sound good on limited playback systems is if the mix has lows like a kick drum or bass gtr. you seem to loose everything below about 150 hz so I tend to boost 100 to 250 a bit to keep the low instruments still audible

I think the more you move away from in front of your stereo speakers you are moving away from that perfect stereo sound (might be wrong on this ... I'm writing as I'm thinking about it :halo:) ... for example, taken to extremes, when you have the music on in the living room but you are in the hall ... you are hearing a mono signal ... through the doorway.

Bob's explanation was pretty clear. There are some recording techniques and effect that achieve their stereo wideness by taking one track copying it and flipping the polarity. When these two are played back and panned to extremes you get a very wide sound. When you combine them in mono, the sound can disappear because the two polarities cancel out..